Atlantis suffered major MMOD hit

• Atlantis suffered major MMOD hit by Chris Bergin on 04 Oct, 2006 18:13
• http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4848
• #1 by Rocket Ronnie on 04 Oct, 2006 21:51
• This all seems a bit of a worry. Nothing any level of modifications will stop crap in space hitting the orbiters.
• #2 by Flightstar on 04 Oct, 2006 23:29
• It's pretty much summed up with the related thread and information on L2. Still too early as to how managers will portray this, although it was rare to see how undressed the concern was on their own memo. Dodged bullet it may be.
• #3 by Davie OPF on 05 Oct, 2006 00:53
• Looks like this was missed on orbit, but only because this was a bit of a surprise. Thank God it wasn't RCC, but then it would have been spotted.
• #4 by STS Tony on 05 Oct, 2006 01:49
• This has been linked on MSNBC by the good Jim Oberg
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134114/
• #5 by Jamie Young on 05 Oct, 2006 03:21
• Yay for Jim Oberg!
• #6 by Bubbinski on 05 Oct, 2006 04:12
• Would something that makes a hole that size be trackable by radars?  The more I think about this, the more I realize why retiring the shuttle in 2010 is for the best.  I don't imagine anyone would want to design a new manned spacecraft with critical heat shielding exposed to the space environment and debris hits.
  
  And I just had another thought: would this be a good argument for shortening missions to the minimum required duration to meet mission objectives, and landing on the scheduled landing day, no matter where the shuttle has to land (Edwards or White Sands) rather than wait an extra day for weather to clear at KSC?  Are there any discussions on that?
• #7 by Zoomer30 on 05 Oct, 2006 06:23
• The MMODs are moving so fast and are so small I doubt they would show up on radar.  The amount of damage that was done shows there was a large speed difference between the orbiter and the object, so IMO its not likely that it came off the orbiter.
  
  There are many nightmare outcomes that come from MMODs hitting the ship. Somehting that is going fast enough and is large enough could hit a fuel cell.  Something could hit the aft end and damage an APU.  Anything.  The really bad thing is even though the CEV will be much safer, it wont be able to aviod this issue either (at least its heat shield is covered.)
• #8 by hop on 05 Oct, 2006 06:55
• Quote

  Bubbinski - 4/10/2006  8:55 PM
  Would something that makes a hole that size be trackable by radars?

  Not even close. The hole was ~0.1 inch, and whatever caused it could have been significantly smaller. AFAIK, the smallest items routinely tracked from the ground are 10s of inches.
• #9 by rfoshaug on 05 Oct, 2006 08:08
• Could this hit be large enough to have been a serious problem if it had hit the crew cabin (windows)?
• #10 by rdale on 05 Oct, 2006 09:04
• "would this be a good argument for shortening missions to the minimum required duration to meet mission objectives, and landing on the scheduled landing day,"
  
  How would that impact MMOD issues?
• #11 by nacnud on 05 Oct, 2006 10:11
• It would reduce the time at risk.
• #12 by rdale on 05 Oct, 2006 11:42
• Given that this is the largest strike ever, and the shuttle has been aloft for MANY hours over the years, I can't see how an extra 24h in space is worth the cost and risk of bringing it down on the other side of the country...
• #13 by Jim on 05 Oct, 2006 12:09
• The ISS has the same risks.   Shortening a few shuttle missions couple of days is not going to change the magnitude of the risk.  Shuttle missions are so short, the change in duration is insignificant wrt MMOD hazard.   If they would be that worried about it, then we should fly
• #14 by DaveS on 05 Oct, 2006 12:40
• Quote

  rdale - 5/10/2006  1:25 PM
  
  Given that this is the largest strike ever, and the shuttle has been aloft for MANY hours over the years, I can't see how an extra 24h in space is worth the cost and risk of bringing it down on the other side of the country...

  I agree, with the main point being that it isn't known when the MMOD hit the radiator panel. It could have been on FD1 or it could have been on FD13.
  
  This MMOD impact damage was first spotted during routine radiator damage surveys in the OPF after the mission.
• #15 by dutch courage on 05 Oct, 2006 14:05
• Orion will visit the ISS in 2014 or just about. I wonder if the station arm will be used to check for MMOD hits to Orion.
  A Laser Dynamic Range Imager could be attached to the station arm.
  
  
• #16 by MKremer on 05 Oct, 2006 16:02
• Quote

  dutch courage - 5/10/2006  8:48 AM
  
  Orion will visit the ISS in 2014 or just about. I wonder if the station arm will be used to check for MMOD hits to Orion.
  A Laser Dynamic Range Imager could be attached to the station arm.
  
  

  No need for that, IMO, and it's not really worth the time/trouble. The most critical re-entry element, the CM heat shield, is buried in the SM. Also, once the CEV un-docks it will almost immediately go into the re-entry phase, much like Soyuz does, and not 'hang around' in LEO.
  
  
• #17 by Jorge on 05 Oct, 2006 16:52
• Quote

  Bubbinski - 4/10/2006  10:55 PM
  
  would this be a good argument for shortening missions to the minimum required duration to meet mission objectives, and landing on the scheduled landing day, no matter where the shuttle has to land (Edwards or White Sands) rather than wait an extra day for weather to clear at KSC?  Are there any discussions on that?

  
  The remaining flights are already about as jam-packed with mission objectives as they can be; you really don't want to go deleting the occasional off-duty day since it will run the crew ragged and increase the risk of errors due to fatigue. So shortening any remaining missions necessarily means deleting mission objectives. That either requires creating new flights to pick up those objectives (adding an ascent and entry, thereby increasing overall programmatic risk), or simply leaving the objectives incomplete. The latter is unadvisable since the assembly sequence goes in order and has been packed about as tightly as it can; deleted objectives will have a cascade effect on subsequent flights.
  
  Landing on scheduled landing day will not significantly decrease MMOD risk. Most of the risk is during the docked phase because the orbiter cannot fly in the most optimal debris-protect attitude (tail-forward, bay-to-Earth) which the orbiter does use post-undocking. The current docked attitude, orbiter bay-forward, is a risk trade-off; they protect the RCC and lower surface TPS at the cost of a slight increase in risk to the radiators and windows. For that reason, it is almost certain that the current "ding" occurred during docked flight since it struck the upper side of a radiator, the side that would have been facing the velocity vector while docked but facing Earth after undocking.
  --
  JRF
• #18 by soldeed on 05 Oct, 2006 17:17
• Can this radiator be repaired, or are there spares available and they can scrap it? How would you repair the hole? Since it missed the coolant lines I imagine you could weld a plug, then grind and polish it out.
• #19 by Jim on 05 Oct, 2006 18:41
• no spares.  It can be repaired
• #20 by Chris Bergin on 05 Oct, 2006 18:59
• NASA have images up:
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/multimedia/sts115/MMOD_impact.html
  
  It is (from L2 NASA info) the largest impact in the history of the program (from MMOD).
• #21 by pip on 05 Oct, 2006 19:16
• Wow, that is pretty scary.  Makes me wonder, though.  What is the procedure if the space shuttle is struck by a MMOD and it leaves a hole in the crew compartment causing decompression?  Can the shuttle's life support systems go into some mode where they can compensate for a short period of time, just pumping a lot of new air into the cabin?  Does the crew attempt to don their pressure suits?  Do they have hose interfaces to get air from the shuttle or would they be doomed?  If at the ISS, do they all just flee into the station and ditch the ship?
• #22 by MKremer on 05 Oct, 2006 19:26
• Decompression flows from in to out - a fairly simply inside pressure patch can take care of that as long as it isn't a more catastrophic hit (under 1/4", which itself would be very large, and very rare damage).
  
  Small 'holes' don't leak that fast at the orbiter crew compartment pressure - unless it's a really big hole (1/2" or larger) there would normally be plenty of time and O2 reserves to find and patch an impact hole.
  
• #23 by Jim on 05 Oct, 2006 20:09
• Quote

  pip - 5/10/2006  2:59 PM
  
  Wow, that is pretty scary.  Makes me wonder, though.  What is the procedure if the space shuttle is struck by a MMOD and it leaves a hole in the crew compartment causing decompression?  Can the shuttle's life support systems go into some mode where they can compensate for a short period of time, just pumping a lot of new air into the cabin?  Does the crew attempt to don their pressure suits?  Do they have hose interfaces to get air from the shuttle or would they be doomed?  If at the ISS, do they all just flee into the station and ditch the ship?

  
  Yes to all except the last two and they can patch it
• #24 by Chris Bergin on 05 Oct, 2006 21:48
• Jim's updated his MSNBC article...same link.
• #25 by Bubbinski on 06 Oct, 2006 03:35
• Ah....I didn't know about the orbiter flying attitudes when docked and when undocked.  Thanks Jorge.  Anyway, another thing to consider is the effect landing at Edwards has on the orbiter processing timeline for the next flight, if the orbiter's flight attitude is good enough to reduce the last day MMOD risks (to the heat shielding esp. RCC) all by itself then it would make sense to wait for available KSC opportunities, as NASA does have the 2010 deadline to consider and sticking close to schedule is critical to meet that and finish the ISS.  I'm still happy that Orion won't have the heat shield exposed to the same extent, as it would seem the debris problem in orbit would get worse as we expand human activity into LEO and beyond (as we should), would it not?
  
  
• #26 by dbhyslop on 06 Oct, 2006 04:03
• Quote

  MKremer - 5/10/2006  3:09 PM
  
  Small 'holes' don't leak that fast at the orbiter crew compartment pressure - unless it's a really big hole (1/2" or larger) there would normally be plenty of time and O2 reserves to find and patch an impact hole.
  

  
  It seems to me I read somewhere that time would be measured in hours rather than minutes for a 1/2" hole.  I'm curious to know more about the procedures for an event like this:  is there a public resource on this or information on L2?
  
  Dan
• #27 by Orbiter Obvious on 06 Oct, 2006 05:17
• Oh my, this site got linked by the New York Times!! http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/science/space/06shuttle.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
• #28 by MKremer on 06 Oct, 2006 07:33
• At least the good news (if you could call it that) is the crew compartment itself is pretty hard to puncture in the first place. It's really a separate pressure vessel mounted inside the outer orbiter skin (which in turn is covered with a variety of TPS materials).
  
  I think the primary concern, as far as time goes, is just locating and exposing the puncture itself to be able to patch it. Most of the crew compartment has a whole lot of 'stuff' (panels, supports, wiring, pipes/tubing, insulation, etc.) between the crew and the aluminum pressure vessel skin.
  
• #29 by triddirt on 06 Oct, 2006 11:45
• NASA released the pictures (obviously at media request), but I couldn't find any comment or press release Can anyone provide a link?
  In reading the Times article it was clearly downplayed because of it's location.  Almost no sense from NASA on the "lucky" location..
  
  Would any other locations on the orbiter have led to catestrophic damage (from same debris).
• #30 by rdale on 06 Oct, 2006 12:10
• Quick comment is available at the top of the NASA homepage: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
  
  It's not really something that would benefit from a formal press release unless I don't understand your question.
• #31 by astrobrian on 06 Oct, 2006 12:23
• CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.
• #32 by rdale on 06 Oct, 2006 12:31
• Screwed by Florida Today though - their top story says "The hole's existence was first reported Thursday on NASA's Web site."
• #33 by Rocket Guy on 06 Oct, 2006 12:46
• If you read carefully you would see that it is the AP, not Florida Today, who wrote the story. The blog post is just an adaption of that, so they probably had no idea of the hit before this morning.
• #34 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 12:51
• Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  1:06 PM
  
  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

  
  Did he? As in on the TV?    
• #35 by collectSPACE on 06 Oct, 2006 13:49
• Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  7:06 AM
  
  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

  I didn't see the broadcast myself, but my inbox is full this morning with notes from collectSPACE readers that the photo shown by Miles (and apparently Lou Dobbs last night) carried "Collect Space" as the credit...
  
  On edit, I received a call from CNN this morning confirming that they had been using our site as the source. They were however, getting ready to switch to using NASA.
  
• #36 by Orion_Guy on 06 Oct, 2006 15:10
• Quote

  rdale - 6/10/2006  8:14 AM
  
  Screwed by Florida Today though - their top story says "The hole's existence was first reported Thursday on NASA's Web site."

  
  Well, it's not totally inaccurate.  If you click the nasa.gov link that they provided in the blog, it does take you to a NASA webpage with the photos, and it does have yesterday's date on it.  
  
  The inaccuracies comes from how you interpret the word "first" in the sentence.  I'm guessing that they meant that NASA first reported it on Thursday.  Not that it was reported first anywhere, by anybody until Thursday.
• #37 by Paul Howard on 06 Oct, 2006 15:31
• Quote

  collectspace - 6/10/2006  8:32 AM
  
  

  Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  7:06 AM
  
  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

  I didn't see the broadcast myself, but my inbox is full this morning with notes from collectSPACE readers that the photo shown by Miles (and apparently Lou Dobbs last night) carried "Collect Space" as the credit...
  
  On edit, I received a call from CNN this morning confirming that they had been using our site as the source. They were however, getting ready to switch to using NASA.
  

  
  That's nice, but I think Astrobrian means NSF when he says this site Can you confirm that?
  
  It's nice this site didn't change to the NASA photo either as I was expecting the article to change to the NASA.gov photos.
• #38 by Jeff Bingham on 06 Oct, 2006 15:38
• I requested an overview from NASA and got this yesterday (Thursday) which doesn't offer a lot of new detail, but is a handy summation of NASA commentary to this point on this:
  
  During routine post flight inspection of Atlantis after landing and return to the Orbiter Processing Facility, a small hole measuring 1/10th inch in diameter was identified on one of the radiator panels lining the inside of the right-hand payload bay door.  The damage has been preliminarily identified as caused by micrometeroid orbital debris (MMOD), which passed through the radiator’s face (outer) sheet, interior honeycomb structure, and inner sheet.  However, the MMOD did not impact the payload bay door itself.  The damage to the radiator did not risk the safety of the crew, orbiter or mission.
  
  Photo/schematic:
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/multimedia/sts115/MMOD_impact.html
  
  Damage dimensions:
  Face sheet      .108 inch diameter
  Inner face      .03 inch diameter with associated .26 inch-long crack
  Inner core      ~ 1 inch diameter x .5 inch deep (below face sheet)
  
  This MMOD damage is the most significant seen on the orbiter radiators, and most damaging particle ever encountered – second only to the impact detected on the payload bay door following the STS-73 mission of Columbia in October/November 1995.  During that flight, the outer surface of the payload bay door thermal protection system flexible reusable surface insulation (FRSI) was impacted by orbital debris leaving a 7mm x 12mm hole in the FRSI.
  
  Ground operations personnel at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, will repair the damage as soon as a plan is developed/approved, while ensuring the damage site is protected for analysis by orbital debris experts at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.  With that in mind, a section of the silver-Teflon thermal tape (outer surface) has been removed from the face sheet for analysis by the Hypervelocity Impact Technology Facility at JSC beginning Friday (Oct. 6). The analysis of residue from the tape pulls will try to determine the chemistry of the MMOD to determine if it was natural (meteoroid) or man made and also to determine the angle of the impact and its velocity.
  
  It is important to remember that the on orbit attitude, or position, of the mated shuttle/station stack was changed to better protect the more vulnerable areas of the shuttle (i.e. TPS).  The Program knew this change in attitude would increase the likelihood of other areas (i.e. the shuttle radiators) being impacted by MMOD.
  
  The Space Shuttle Program always has identified micrometeroid orbital debris as a top risk to the vehicles and determined that late inspection of the orbiter thermal protection system is required on all flights for the remainder of the Program to ensure safety of the TPS for entry.  The late inspection was instituted on the STS-121 mission in July 2006 and continued with STS-115 in September. The focus of late inspection is to ensure the outer thermal protection system is not compromised for entry and could easily have detected damage of this small size if it had occurred on the wing leading edge Reinforced Carbon Carbon panels.
  
  
  
• #39 by collectSPACE on 06 Oct, 2006 15:43
• Quote

  Paul Howard - 6/10/2006  10:14 AM
  
  That's nice, but I think Astrobrian means NSF when he says this site Can you confirm that?

  Right, and as our readers' e-mails (and later CNN itself) confirmed it was cS that means it wasn't NSF, hence my reply to Brian's post...
  
• #40 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 15:54
• Quote

  Paul Howard - 6/10/2006  4:14 PM
  
  It's nice this site didn't change to the NASA photo either as I was expecting the article to change to the NASA.gov photos.

  
  No need to. Robert had the images first. We had the info first.
  
  The synergy on this story is correctly portrayed by the accreditation.
• #41 by rdale on 06 Oct, 2006 15:55
• Quote

  Orion_Guy - 6/10/2006  10:53 AM
  
  I'm guessing that they meant that NASA first reported it on Thursday.

  
  Then why go to the trouble to take references to NSF out? Someone (either FlaTod or AP) did that intentionally for some reason.
• #42 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 16:03
• Quote

  rdale - 6/10/2006  4:38 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Orion_Guy - 6/10/2006  10:53 AM
  
  I'm guessing that they meant that NASA first reported it on Thursday.

  
  Then why go to the trouble to take references to NSF out? Someone (either FlaTod or AP) did that intentionally for some reason.

  
  Looking at the AP Wire, they referenced to NASA.gov's Thursday publication of the images. Wire services would deem it bad business to accredit another media site, as wire services - by their very nature - sell their wire to the mass media as "new news".
  
  Absolutely positive no one "took out" accreditation. I'd only have a problem if AP tagged their report "Exclusive", which they didn't. They appear to simply be saying that NASA went official with it on Thursday, which is correct. We just happened to run it on Wednesday.
  
  Personally, I'm not at all bothered, I'm just happy (because I'm from the old school of media) that there's been some really great accreditation from the big boys like MSNBC and NY Times etc.
  
  My focus is always on the next article - and my concern is only with advancing this site's content.
• #43 by MKremer on 06 Oct, 2006 16:16
• Quote

  51D Mascot - 6/10/2006  10:21 AM
  
  I requested an overview from NASA and got this yesterday (Thursday) which doesn't offer a lot of new detail, but is a handy summation of NASA commentary to this point on this:
  

  
  Thanks very much for posting that.
  
• #44 by Orion_Guy on 06 Oct, 2006 18:44
• I wonder sometimes if the big dogs like CNN get the news just as fast as the specialized space news sites, but do not devote resources to it to get it to print as quickly because the general american public cares more about what happend on lastnight's episode of Lost then they do about a small hole in a radiator panel.  I mean, I would think that an organization that has been covering the news for so long, has so much money, so much attention, and so many people would have just as many "inside" contacts.  
  
  Then again, since they are more concerned about reporting things like who Paris Hilton got into a fight with, maybe they do not find it important to devote any time to getting quick space news.
  
  
• #45 by astrobrian on 06 Oct, 2006 21:47

• Quote

  Chris Bergin - 6/10/2006  7:34 AM  

  Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  1:06 PM  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

   Did he? As in on the TV?    

   

  Yup. saw it this morning just before heading to work, around 630am central time 

• #46 by astrobrian on 06 Oct, 2006 21:49

• Quote

  collectspace - 6/10/2006  8:32 AM  

  Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  7:06 AM  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

  I didn't see the broadcast myself, but my inbox is full this morning with notes from collectSPACE readers that the photo shown by Miles (and apparently Lou Dobbs last night) carried "Collect Space" as the credit...  On edit, I received a call from CNN this morning confirming that they had been using our site as the source. They were however, getting ready to switch to using NASA.

  The picture did indeed say collect space in the upper right corner, but this site was mention in the talking going on relating to the story and said we had it first 

• #47 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 23:54
• Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  10:30 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Chris Bergin - 6/10/2006  7:34 AM  

  Quote

  astrobrian - 6/10/2006  1:06 PM  CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.

   Did he? As in on the TV?    

   

  Yup. saw it this morning just before heading to work, around 630am central time 

  
  Shame no one caught it on video. That'd of been cool to see.
• #48 by realtime on 07 Oct, 2006 04:46
• Just to get back on topic a bit -- can any information be gleaned about exactly what the MMOD was composed of?  Did it come from orbital launch debris or was it from something coming in from space?  
  
  Just playing the odds, I'm guessing it's orbital.  Also, there are a lot of factors, but it seems like something that big moving at interplanetary speeds would do more damage, maybe punch all the way through.
  
• #49 by pip on 07 Oct, 2006 09:18
• Yeah, the MMOD didn't completely penetrate all the way through did it?  I haven't read anything along those lines so I'd think there'd be some kind of chance that they could find it.  But I haven't heard anything about them doing that either.  I understand the physics/statistics of the situation might prevent that.  Though something might be said about the orbiter's durability seeing that it didn't pass all the way through.
• #50 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 13:13
• it vaporized
• #51 by realtime on 07 Oct, 2006 18:45
• Even vaporized, one would expect deposits in the damaged structure to analyze.  It could prove useful knowledge.
• #52 by Spirit on 07 Oct, 2006 21:21
• Sh** just happens. NASA is not supposed to havy armour its ships in order to sustain damage from MMOD, comets, aliens or enemies. Space flight is risky and the people involved in it know it very well.
• #53 by Orbiter Obvious on 10 Oct, 2006 03:52
• Any updates on repairing the hole?
• #54 by Chris Bergin on 11 Oct, 2006 01:47
• MacLean says crew lucky after unknown object pierced radiator of shuttle
  
  http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9a425769-5a51-432b-9164-85eb19c7eea3&k=62663&p=1
• #55 by Jeff Bingham on 11 Oct, 2006 02:08
• Yes, "Lucky" that it didn't hit the freon loop and force an early deorbit...assuming of course, it occurred before most--or even all--of the mission objectives were met. Don't think we have a sense yet of when the impact occurred, do we? Who knows...maybe that's what caused those debris pieces to dislodge that were observed a couple of days before landing?
  
  I also thought it interesting that MacLean says we shouldn't abandon the shuttle in 2010, but keep using it...presumably until we have a replacement for the longer term and for VSE missions beyond LEO. Of course, that would take more money than is currently projected by the Administration, because it is MONEY that is driving the 2010 retirement date and the number of missions beyween now and then.